"Futurism" earlier in the year was one of the worst I've ever been to. Pop Life at least has some character to it, even if the character is the kind you'd like to drown in a canal.

I don't have any insight into this at all, but I wonder if they have some difficulty in getting decent exhibitions up and running these days because their own collection isn't that great? Almost all major exhibitions depend upon the "got, got, got, need" that must constantly go on between different institutions. Some of the recent Tate Britain exhibitions have been incredible, but they must have a lot more clout when it comes to swapsies.

The first few years of Tate Modern had some excellent exibitions, but it seems to have tailed off enormously since then.

... undoubtedly the exception. But I would assume - again with nothing at all to back it up - that it's easier to gather together the representative work of one artist for a major retrospective than to assemble all the key landmark works that represent an entire field. (They did a pretty good job with Gilbert & George as well in fact.)

I actually came out of the Louise Bourgeois exhibition converted from vaguely interested to convinced she's "a great" (whatever that might mean) and that's got to be a pretty good sign.

The Dali and film exhibition they did last year was great too, actually - I think (without having bothered with their overviews of art movements in recent years, so I can't really substantiate what I'm saying) THAT they might just be better with retrospectives.

I loved the Bourgeois exhibition too - it was laid-out really well, without being repetitive (given the obsessive nature of her work) and it made me more a bit more appreciative of soft sculpture and other forms which I hadn't really got before.

i found it interesting how it got crossed over with cubism and vorticism.

furthermore, just learning about the history that created the unrest which inspired the artists and how they were effectively the cool art kids of their generation (and far cooler, may i add, than emin, hirst and all those bastards) and that's been largely overlooked.

My main problem with Futurism was that all the artists talked a great game but never really produced anything particularly inspired. I'd seen\read about things like BLAST before - which is definitely interesting - so that wasn't new to me and the art itself was a major letdown.

Plus, they weren't that cool, were they? They talked about burning down galleries and destroying the art of the past, but I don't remember any of them actually doing it.

2) I thought the lay out was terrible. I like an exhibition to have a start and finish point, rather than me having to wander around and make sure I find every room.
3) I hatehatehatehate Hirst, Emin and Warhol. I shouldn't have gone really. Stupid peer pressure.

a rabbit some other pieces.
Tate exhibitions are not gerneally very good - Kippenburger and Doig being exceptions.
I 2nd the layout comments. I've had shits that have had more curatorial consideration.

It's more about the explicit commercialisation of Pop Art, which personally made it kinda unappealing. Not least as there's little wider context or critical comment. There's no Lichtenstein or Richard Hamilton for example - not much Dali either. Lots of Andy Warhol adverts for VHS and Betamax instead.

I went to the Jesus Porn (see above) exhibition at the National Gallery on the same day, and that was infinitely more interesting. Maybe just a quarter of the size, but incredibly well-curated and had a coherent theme that spoke volumes through the art on show. Quite how they got some of that stuff over to the UK when it's never left a particular cathedral in 400 years I don't know.